Favors v. Beeson-Stoesz

Background

Joseph Anthony Favors filed claims against Malea Beeson-Stoesz, Kristi Mike, Samantha Ensz, Mike Hettig, Sonja Walker, Heidi Menard, Jeannine Herbert, Nancy Johnston, and Jodi Harpstead. He alleged that the defendants conspired to lower his quarterly report scores in retaliation for his grievances. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Eighth Amendment, substantive due process, and Minnesota law.

Favors filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The defendants had moved to dismiss, but they had not filed an answer or moved for summary judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff generally may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before an answer or summary-judgment motion. In that situation, the dismissal ordinarily operates without prejudice.

Prior related cases

Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides an exception when the plaintiff previously dismissed a federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim. In that circumstance, the later notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

The court reviewed Favors’s earlier lawsuits and determined that the retaliation claims in this case appeared to be the same as claims raised in at least two earlier matters: Favors v. Mike, No. 20cv365, and Favors v. Menard, No. 20cv1156. Although the alleged methods of retaliation differed, the court found that the cases appeared to involve the same basic events: Favors complained about the treatment of another detainee and alleged that he was retaliated against because of those complaints. Favors had voluntarily dismissed both earlier cases.

Ruling

The court concluded that Rule 41(a)(1)(B) prevented Favors from dismissing this case without prejudice. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The order did not decide whether Favors’s underlying retaliation, constitutional, or Minnesota-law claims were legally valid.